get_connection_health

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It excellently explains transport-dependent behavior, the limits of UDP, and the fact that a healthy link does not verify command acknowledgment—offering deep transparency about what the result means.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and well-structured: it opens with a clear purpose, then explains transport nuances, and ends with an important caveat. Every sentence contributes value without fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: what the tool does, how to interpret results, and its limitations. No further details are needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds useful context about interpreting results based on the transport, but there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline 4 is appropriate given no parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reports on what can be determined about the link to the console, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that control playback or macros, making its diagnostic purpose evident.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when the tool is reliable (TCP) and when it is not (UDP), and explicitly warns not to use it as evidence that commands were understood. While it does not name alternative tools, it gives strong situational guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.